[CQ-Contest] ARRL single op definition

[Dick Green WC1M]

Mike, you've gotten right to the heart of the matter by emphasizing the word
OPERATOR. To me, this highlights the fact that KV4FZ was an operator *in
name only*. As far as we know. he didn't do any of the actions ARRL uses to
define Single-Op:

2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving, and
logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.

The fact that Herb *could* have done these things is irrelevant. Any op in
the room *could* have done them, but only Yuri did. That's ARRL's definition
of Single-Op. 

If you take my approach, and ask whether the competition was altered by the
way the station was operated, then all you could claim is that Yuri was able
to generate a higher score by operating in the Extra Class sub band. I don't
think the difference is significant enough to matter, but others might. If
that's the case, then ARRL rules need to explicitly state that operating
under the superior privileges of a control operator is not allowed.

Now, should that be only for Single-Op, or all classes? Again, let's stay
away from the specious argument that the control op counts as an operator.
Looking at it only from the competitive perspective, lower class licensees
using the superior privileges of the control operator at a Multi-Op station
also have an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have. Why don't we restrict
those ops to using only the privileges of their own license? If it makes a
competitive difference in Single-Op, it makes the same difference in
Multi-Op. We're going to have to get rid of unlicensed ops at multis, too,
because when bodies are needed, that's a scoring advantage, too. Too bad,
because it will be a setback to recruiting new hams and new contest
operators.

This is why I think we need to back off Draconian interpretations of the
rules and let people have fun, as long as it doesn't materially alter the
playing field.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:08 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL single op definition
> 
> And if Yuri had operated within the confines or privileges of HIS
> license we would not be having this discussion.
> 
> KV4FZ was a control OPERATOR.  Without this Control OPERATOR Yuri would
> have been operating illegally.  Without him the results may have been
> far different.  We will never know.
> 
> Mike W0MU
> 
> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
> Http://www.w0mu.com
> 
> On 6/25/2012 6:35 AM, kr2q at optimum.net wrote:
> > Simple...go to the source: the RULES
> >
> > 2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving,
> and logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
> >
> > So...did KV4FZ (or any control op) do any transmitting, receiving,
> logging or equipment/ant adjustments?  If all he did is turn the stuff
> on at the beginning of the contest, I don't think the ARRL's definition
> of single op was violated.
> >
> > YMMV
> >
> > de Doug KR2Q
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
>